Anonymous
Update and photos by Marian Shapiro
May 4, 2022
As a response to the Leaked Supreme Court statement which indicated Roe v Wade would be overturned, a rally was organized by Planned Parenthood and the Women’s March SB on Tuesday, May 3. It got a huge turnout of outraged women and men from teens to 90-year-olds, filling up De la Guerra Plaza at 5 pm, including many elected officials and candidates.
My photos from the Pro-Choice rally are here: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzNfBt (with some in the above slideshow)
(left to right) Former State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Marian Shapiro, and Jenna Tosh of Planned Parenthood
Source: Women’s March Santa Barbara
May 3, 2022
The Supreme Court of the United States could overturn Roe v. Wade. The opinion leaked yesterday is a DRAFT opinion, not the final opinion, and abortion remains legal (at this point).
However, this draft opinion will be DEVASTATING for abortion rights for more than 36 million people across our country.
We are rallying at De La Guerra Plaza in Santa Barbara at 5:00pm in support of our rights! Excerpt below from MoveOn.org:
Last night, we learned right-wing justices on the Supreme Court intend to overturn Roe v. Wade. This decision would allow states to ban abortion across the country, leading to even further assaults on reproductive health.Today, we show up—to say abortion care is health care and #BansOffOurBodies!
These protests are coming together fast. All across the country, folks are going to gather at federal courthouses and other federal buildings, town halls, town squares, and community outdoor spaces. Because of the short turnaround time, we don’t have details for each local event, and most won’t have formal hosts or programs. Instead, it’s just a natural outpouring of energy as we show up to resist the attacks from the right-wing justices and Republican politicians and demonstrate that we will continue to fight to ensure abortion is safe, legal, and accessible for all who seek it.
The vast majority of Americans believe abortion should be safe, legal, and accessible. We are showing up before the right-wing justices on the Supreme Court finalize a decision. We are showing up to demand elected officials—in Congress and in state houses—take every measure to codify abortion rights.
And we are showing up so that people who seek and need abortions and abortion providers know they are not alone—we are in this together.
Over the upcoming days, weeks, and months, we’ll continue to show up. We’ll pressure lawmakers and the Supreme Court, we’ll support abortion funds and abortion providers. We’ll share information on how people can access reproductive care. We’ll turn out in bigger numbers and larger rallies as needed.
Most of the nation will be marching soon. If you thought it was enjoyable to see people dress up in costumes from the revolutionary war because they bought into the lie the election lie was stolen – you have seen nothing yet. The Supreme Court is saying that women have no rights over their own bodies – and should be forced to bear children of rape and incest – and have opened the way to allow states to vote on gay marriage and even the use of birth control. This is what the evangelical right has always wanted – to control women’s bodies and control what goes on in every bedroom. When the Supreme Court upholds the religious minority you will see a mass revolt.
I wonder how many have ever seen a video of an abortion?
Apparently conservatives believe women’s bodies are property of the state. Will they take away their voting rights next?
This isn’t health it’s Edhat
This ruling will just kick the decision back to the states. You can still kill the unborn if you choose to.
One would hope GT and Sac. But this country has proven that it doesn’t care about women’s rights, minority rights, LGBTQ rights, and so on. Brace for the worst.
@ General :
“The Supreme Court is saying that women have no rights over their own bodies – and should be forced to bear children of rape and incest”.
a) This is not what SCOTUS is saying and
b) Why don’t you tell us what percentage of abortions have to do with “rape and incest” ?
All the (great majority of it) is just lazy, irresponsible and financed by “others” contraception !
How many people commenting actually read the draft? The draft literally says that the court had no right to make the Roe v. Wade decision and it should be left up to the states and voters. The court LITERALLY allows for democracy to happen rather than rule by court.
Anyone realize Biden in 1982 put forward a constitutional amendment to get rid of Roe v Wade?
We should Stop the Steal of these rights!!!!
Cute, at best.
Fond – your statement is basically saying women should be forced to carry the baby of a sexual assault or incest situation. That is the state having rights over women’s bodies. That is communism.
CONSERVATIVESB – leaving it up to states doesn’t make this any better. Look at the pending 6-week bans in Oklahoma and Texas. Forcing women to travel out of state for a procedure that could be life-saving is barbaric and not in any way “American.” No, leaving it to the states, especially in this day and age, is not OK.
“This is not what SCOTUS is saying and” Apparently you lack the understanding of the Supreme Court challenge of the 14th Amendment. Not sure how to teach you about that in a short post.
OGSB The percentage doesn’t matter – the fact that the state requires a woman to carry an abominable pregnancy is the issue. You are also linking to an article from 1989. At 1% you are also talking about 10,000 abortions due to rape or incest each year. With that being said – the woman does not need to tell the practitioner that the procedure is due to rape or incest – so the number is likely higher. Your arguments are flawed.
So was Joe Biden barbaric when he wanted to get rid of it with an amendment?
Also I am very pro-life so most of the sentiment expressed on here is lost on me. We should be attempting to save the baby’s life every single time. Just because the woman’s life is in danger (which is VERY rare), why can’t we try to save the baby? Why is it automatic to kill the baby?
Killing the unborn should not be a form of birth control nor for convenience because mom’s life will be more difficult.
Biden is a Catholic male. His personal beliefs then or now shouldn’t affect my rights to what happens inside my body.
336pm – I’m intrigued! So what is “it” at 26 weeks and a day…still “cells” or what’s the correct word at that juncture?
I don’t need to be “corrected” by a science denier. A 26 week clump of cells can be born and survive.
04:39- what are you thoughts on mandating Covid vaccines? Same “my body my choice” position?
So if the Supreme Court is correctly interpreting the law and it’s a state issue and the majority of people in the US will still be able to get an abortion right where they live (and the rest can still get it but there is a drive/bus ride required)…are we still truly mad? You gotta plan ahead for alcohol in Utah… it sucks! But you deal with it because you want to have a fun weekend. So I guess at worst we’re staring down the potential fact that you would have to deal with a bus ride from central Texas for 12 hours to get a life changing procedure in a welcoming neighboring state.
What possibly makes you say/think that? The court is (probably) correctly putting the choice back in the hands of the people. We live in California and will of course vote to keep abortion and not allow the death penalty. Texas will likely do the opposite. Its a state issue… and one that will make most of us feel better about choosing to live here instead of Texas or Florida…
DUKE – but what about the women in Texas or Florida? Do we just feel bad about them losing their rights? Do we just stand by and say nothing?
“You gotta plan ahead for alcohol in Utah… it sucks! But you deal with it because you want to have a fun weekend.” Ugh….. really? Comparing abortion to planning ahead to party on the weekend? Come on man….
Duke, you seem to be attempting to stoop to a new low here. You do realize some states are already planning to make it illegal to go out of state for a procedure right?
Duke – I guess your statement could be construed as exemplifying the misogyny and toxic stereotype of the conservative, white male.
CONSB – how many babies are you willing to adopt? Do you ever complain about your taxes going to help food, clothe, house the children and parents? Nah…. didn’t think so 😉
The difference with the conservatives is they wait till the baby is born to “kill” em. Deny healthcare, welfare, housing. Doom babies to horrible lives. Might as well kill em! The republicans just like to see em suffer.
Duke – Republicans are the ones that blow up abortion clinics and terrorize planned parenthood – as well as try to attack the seat of government while an election certification underway. Democrats will organize, vote and become activists on a massive scale not seen such the 60’s.
Yes ectopic pregnancies occur but like I stated and you decided to leave out is why is the default to kill the baby?
Sac, on top of the 2 I have adopted already? There are endless studies that show there are more families attempting to adopt than there are children available. And I don’t complain about my taxes going to feed and clothe people. I complain when we are told 33 billion of tax payer dollars are going to Ukraine and on the text it says a portion is going towards a pathway to citizenship for Afghan nationals.
Oak – I’m (essentially) a libertarian… so I’m not a fan of getting rid of personal freedoms. I think there should be choice (to a point) and then definitely a lot of medical and legal “ outs”…
CONSB – if that’s true, then good job! As for your taxes, ok…. if you say so!
Texas and Florida will need to fix their corrupted foster care systems – full of child abusers and predators. We’re going to really see how backwoods those states are.
A vast majority of Americans support the status-quo on abortion. That’s not a legal argument, but we need to work to ensure that right-wing fanatics pay a big political price, and pass federal legislation to protect access to the greatest degree possible. [That said, truth is with Roe overturned, it will be unlikely that any federal law with teeth could survive challenges from states who will call it overreach.]
337pm – I’m intrigued! What inconsistencies did you see?
GT – An intriguing accusation! What are you basing that on… general hatred of Florida or actually something concrete?
How????
Sorry con is this a joke? Ectopic pregnancy cannot survive. I believe there is one case in history. So exactly what are you proposing? Do us all a favor and get educated why don’t you!
The ignorance here is maddening! Well I don’t agree at all with those who don’t support the act but that is one thing. The other thing is these people like CONSB who I don’t know think we can move an ectopic pregnancy or something? Just craziness! What are these people thinking!! New idea; you shouldn’t be allowed to vote on this issue if you don’t understand the technicalities. This is just craziness.
Con you are really under my skin! How do you think we can not “kill the baby” in an ectopic pregnancy? Move it? You are pure ignorance!
“As Casey comprehended, at stake in cases challenging abortion restrictions is a woman’s ‘control over her [own] destiny.’ Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.”
In public speeches and in abortion cases before the court, Ginsburg repeatedly emphasized what she believed was fundamentally at stake for women in challenges to the abortion right. Her comments in this quote came from her 2007 dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart in which a 5-4 majority upheld the federal “Partial-Birth Abortion Act.” The court, for the first time, approved a type of abortion ban that made no exceptions for the health of the woman.
Ginsburg Dissent: Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 129 (2007)
The Supreme Court’s position on abortion has evolved and led to different outcomes over the years. In 2007, the Court heard Gonzales v. Carhart, a clash of morality, medicine, privacy, and women’s rights in abortions. In this summary of the case, Franklin Fegurgur, a 2L, highlights Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in which she voiced her concern over the precedents already established in Roe and Casey in which the Court said that “liberty finds no refuge in the jurisprudence of doubt.” Listen to Justice Ginsburg announce her dissent at https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts2/opinion_announcement_audio/22038.
Dissent:
Justice Ginsburg sharply disagreed with the majority noting that “the Court’s hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed.” She believed it was irrational for the State to further any legitimate interest in an equally gruesome procedure, which may be similarly characterized as brutal. In her view, “The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion.” Furthermore, she believed that the Act would “chip away” a right that was declared by the Supreme Court as central to women’s lives. Although Gonzales did not discard previous cases such as Roe or Casey, it was inconsistent with the very principles of stare decisis. Instead of following clear prior holdings, the Court would take deference to this “legislative override of our Constitution-based rulings.”
Justice Ginsburg, true to her roots in litigation for gender equality said of the majority opinion when announcing her dissent, “Notably, the solution the Court approves is not to require doctors to inform women adequately of the different procedures they might choose and the risks each entails. Instead the Court shields the woman by denying her any choice in the matter and this way of protecting women recalls ancient notions about women’s place in society and under the constitution ideas that have long since been discredited.”
https://library.law.hawaii.edu/2017/02/07/ginsburg-dissent-gonzales-v-carhart/#:~:text=Ginsburg%20Dissent%3A%20Gonzales%20v.%20Carhart%2C%
20550%20U.S.%20129,morality%2C%20medicine%2C%20privacy%2C%20and%
20women%E2%80%99s%20rights%20in%20abortions.
Today was a beautiful day outside. Remember we’re all Americans at the end of the day;) United we stand divided we fall. It’s okay to disagree.
Duke – Autonomy of a woman’s body is a fundamental human right, not a state issue. Why would the state come between a woman and her physician? That is Communism. Although if it helps you envelope it in an feeling and uncaring term like then you do you.
Duke – based under the cloak of “states rights” you are advocating for denying termination of the pregnancy to women who have been raped, or been raped by a family member. In some states – a family member or friend driving the one of those women to the doctor would get sued.
Oak you’re approaching this from a 100% emotional standpoint because of your history. And I respect that. All I am saying is that we should be doing everything we can to keep babies alive. If ectopic pregnancies are not viable due to the location, that is certainly something to be addressed. There is a loud faction of the Dem party that is saying you should be able to have an abortion up until the point of birth, and some small factions say even post birth. That is just satanic in my view
GT – I don’t see how a state could vote for that… and if they do it would (and should!) be dealt with!! But again we don’t want activist judges… and it appears from a legal perspective that this is the correct legal Supreme Court decision. It will lead to a lot of political action going forward… much of which will probably be beneficial to dems!!! Power to the people!!!
Even the Bible has nothing to say about abortion, except one passage that indicates the unborn are not considered “full” humans yet. If one killed a woman it was murder but if one killed an unborn it was just a monetary fine. It’s not a republican verses democrat or religious person versus atheist kind of thing. It’s just pure and simple –people using their anti abortion ideas to try to control others and society. This is a medical decision and thus, legally, should only be up to the pregnant person and their doctor.
Thanks for the links Gt… I actually do appreciate them! A quick search though of California’s foster care system pops up a lot of issues too. I think it’s more of a national than state issue…we don’t do all that well (as a nation) by our fostered Youth.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but It’s national my good man. Corruption and failure are our collective issue…. Not just a red OR blue state one.
https://centerforhealthjournalism.org/2013/12/24/series-details-abuse-california%E2%80%99s-foster-care-system?amp
GT – What’s my argument? I linked an article ( Didn’t notice the date) that’s like every other if you do a google search. If you’re saying that 10000+ pregnancies are from rape, I say that is disgusting and horrifying. Something needs to be done about that! WTF is wrong with someone that they would do that to another person?
12:32 – I see spirited discussion and debate. Thankfully, the discourse is relatively mature in this thread and has stayed on topic and without projection, lies or insults. I do notice most of the usual suspects have kept quiet, so perhaps that’s one reason.
Duke at 6:20: These laws will force opponents to spend time and money fighting.
“New anti-abortion proposals in the Missouri House would allow lawsuits against those who help residents cross state lines for the procedure, as well as criminalize aborting nonviable pregnancies.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/missouri-anti-abortion-bills-seek-154250592.html
You need to catch up on the news!
Let alone the vigilante aspect of the TX law.
.Alabama’s legislators — almost all men (29 men to 6 women) — decided they have the inalienable right to dictate what is also right for women. While they focused on punishing the women and their physicians for their decisions — actions in which males played crucial roles — they cast a blind eye on the rapist and incestuous relative, all dominating individuals who perceive women as prey.
This should give pause for thought … the electoral college has resulted in minority rule and senators aren’t necessarily the enlightened versions of the lower house. I’d also throw in Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) must feel completely duped.
Senate – minority rule
President – can be elected by minority due to electoral college
Court – stacked by the president who can be minority elected
Congress – can be influenced by corrupt gerrymandering so districts work in favor of some powers
Sure doesn’t sound like a democracy to me now does it
Sac – Not around you maybe, but inside you…
We do??
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/california-governor-gavin-newsom-orders-dismantling-of-californias-death-row
OGSB – not the same as your killing your friends, family and neighbors. Their deaths will also affect those around them. Forced pregnancy can also cause a life of misery for both mother and child. The covid vaccine does not. There’s another difference for those still somehow not understanding this.
OGSB – yes, we do. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/federal-death-penalty
Lucky for all you, you live in CA where killing fetuses will never be illegal.
SFGA – yes, we are lucky to be in CA where a woman has total autonomy over decisions about her health, body and life. Tragically, millions of American women won’t have the freedom if this court rules in the way it’s leaning.
It’s a good thing all those state who would strip women of their rights also have universal childcare, extended parental leave laws, stellar social benefits and top notch public education programs. Oh, wait……
Alito went back to 1868 to view how abortion was viewed when the 14th Amendment was ratified. As the article you posted states, the judges look at the issue if it has a deep root in history. Yes abortion was illegal on 3/4ths of the states at the time. David French neglects some important information. Neither French nor Alito mention that it would be another 50 years before most women could vote for the elected officials who held the power to criminalize abortion. And it would be yet another 50 years before women could get a credit card without their husbands’ permission.
There are irrational people of all sorts. I’d like to say political party didn’t reflect it, but in today’s hijacked Republican party, they win the turkey.
Essentially the question becomes, do we want the Supreme Court to go above and beyond to do what’s “right”, even if it’s beyond their purview. Basically, do we want the Supreme Court going “ends justifies the means” on issues…?
Those are laws that should be changed. But what does that have to do with the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court is tasked with a specific role (interpreting the Constitution)… we the people must change/make the laws. I get that people are upset that the Supreme Court might not be deciding in a way that they want…. But their task is specific… as is ours in a democracy…
golf/foxtrot/yankee. We might all be Americans but no way are we ‘equal’. And we never have been, since our founding. I would like to enjoy the beautiful weather but when my rights as a woman are undermined, I have more important things to think about. I will skip the beach and do some demonstrating until I have the same rights as my husband/sons/grandsons.
Golf foxtrot – I’m with you! It Looks like another Perfect day in SB… one in which I can multitask (work, play, disagree with various laws, etc) as I enjoy the weather… cheers!
If those in chargeof making abortion and/or birth control available had to pay child support for the first18 years of the life of the “baby” they save, this poorly disguised misogyny would stop. They are reacting to the shown ability of competent, educated women to make their living professionally in jobs that used to be mostly or only male. The lower 50% of them can’t compete and fervently wish to keep women “ignorant, pregnant and bare-footed”. It’s the only way they can them and the only way they can get a wife.
This issue is NOT how you feel about abortion. The issue is about making laws that control a woman’s body, and her ability to make decisions regarding her own health. Wouldn’t the easier solution involve the forced sterilization of men? Or maybe only certain men, who do not fit the proper criteria for being fathers? And the Supreme Court can decide that criteria based upon whatever antiquated moral judgements they choose. Crazy, you think?
I seriously hope I’m wrong. But I foresee our towns being burnt and looted again. Let’s all try to keep this peaceful. Other groups will try to infiltrate. It’s gonna get nasty because this is now how people deal,with difference. Stay safe.
its ok, we already know the answer to the first part of your comment.
I guess its ok to kill an innocent unborn child but let’s not execute criminals that commit heinous crimes…go figure
“Samuel Alito is reaching back four centuries to use Sir Edward Coke as a moral authority on abortion — a man who believed in witches and believed that they were working with the devil and believed that witches should be murdered by the state and he helped to make sure that they were murdered by the state in England”
What about all the laws and mandates that required covid vaccinations? My body my choice but only for certain things?
Duke, you are correct. The judiciary branch interprets laws, they don’t make them. Our ELECTED political leaders do.
MEBK – don’t worry about that, moderate liberals are a peaceful bunch. Yes, we will have certain extremists groups trying to join the fray, but, like the BLM movement, this too will be largely peaceful. And yes, there WILL be demonstrations, protests, etc if this comes to pass. We as Americans should not sit idly by while the rights of half our population are stolen from them.
People should have access to abortion… there is a question of course as to what point that access should no longer be applicable (except for a few extreme situations as well as medical emergencies). Anyone care to state what point they think that is?
GT – and a quick good search turns up California struggling too. It’s time to realist that not everything is a partisan issue. As per the below link:
“The federal government has given California bad marks on monitoring the well-being of children in foster care. State officials were slow to investigate complaints of abuse or neglect, failed to notify investigators of serious sexual abuse allegations and didn’t follow up to ensure cases were resolved, according to an audit released late Monday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General.”
https://californiahealthline.org/news/federal-audit-gives-california-poor-marks-on-monitoring-the-welfare-of-foster-children/
So that’s the law and what it should be? Or just that’s the law?
Should a state like Utah be able to vote to take that down to 20 weeks if they wanted (and California to 30) or is 26 weeks the “magic number”?
Interracial marriage and sodomy were illegal in 1868 too. Should those rights be taken away now and given to the states.
It’s hard to ignore the juxtaposition of this recent flare up of the abortion debate, and that of the mandatory covid vaccination debate. Can one legitimately be of the opinion that vaccine mandates are justified, but governmental prohibition of abortion procedures is not? Both issues involve a person’s right to make decision regarding medical procedures, and our government limiting our individual freedoms to make such decisions. This debate really highlights the extent of the ‘my body, my choice’ argument.
CONSERVATIVESB – just curious, who is advocating for post-birth abortions? Where did you read/hear that?
There is no “what it should be” because the answer is subjective and based on opinion. In my opinion, it shouldn’t matter at all because it’s between a woman and her doctor and should not be up for legal debate. You can have another opinion, but the law currently says 26 weeks unless the mother is at risk and doctor and the mother look at different options. But you already knew that and love to argue so why do I even waste my breath?
PITLOCAL – yeah, been hearing that a lot lately. Here’s the difference, pregnancy is not contagious and can’t kill the people around you. That’s basically it.
SAC – Are you saying the “BLM movement was “largely peaceful?” Second, the truth is that no ones opportunity for an abortion will be “stolen” if the SC overturns Roe. If this happens, it will be up to the people in individual states to decide whether or not to legalize abortions. All people have to do is pursue their elected representatives to write legislation to be voted on by people of the state. One can say this is similar to the marijuana issue. People in some states want use/possession to be legal, some not. Some states then changed their laws, for good or for bad. If this is accurate, why all the whining, screaming and barking at the moon about the abortion issue? Nothing is being taken away. I see it as a plus as the government (nine people), one way or the other are not imposing their will on the people, they’re letting the people decide what they want to do. Do you prefer millions of Americans decide this issue, or only nine?
857pm – I appreciate the answer, and honestly I’m not trying to argue here…26 weeks seems reasonable. What do you mean when you say “it shouldn’t matter at all”… would you be of the perspective that it should be allowed up until birth?
DOULIE – “”BLM movement was “largely peaceful?”” Yes. The number of peaceful protests/rallies far outnumbered the riots by fringe/extremist groups on both sides. A simple Google search will back that up.
“it will be up to the people in individual states to decide whether or not to legalize abortions. ” – No, it will be up to whomever is in office. Remember, it’s usually about 1/2 the people in a state/country who choose their leader. Just because they were elected doesn’t mean they represent everyone’s ideals.
Nothing is being taken away? Tell that to the teenage (or preteen) girls who don’t want to perpetuate a life of poverty due to having a baby at 14. Tell that to the women who’s children would be born with a devastating and fatal disease/birth defect that don’t have the money to care for the child properly (thanks to Republican attacks on public health insurance). Tell that to any mother who is unfit to care for a child properly. Tell that to the rape and incest victims. THOSE are the people losing their rights to choose what to do with THEIR bodies.
SACJON – How is leaving the abortion decision up to each state “not OK?” What answer are you afraid of? The sooner people get their representatives to write legislation to be voted on the sooner the question is answered by individual states and everyone goes about their business. There will be those that choose to murder their child and those that don’t.
The supreme court has lost credibility. Alito and his right wing extreme religious group should be removed from the courts as they do not represent the majority of America. They move to suppress women and anyone who does not follow their extreme religion. People are tired of their conspiracy theories.
DOULIE – “How is leaving the abortion decision up to each state “not OK?”” Take a look at the laws in Texas and Oklahoma trying to ban abortion after 6 weeks. Think about how quickly they will enact laws outright criminalizing abortion at any stage. They’re just waiting for Roe v. Wade to go away so they can enact them. You insist on forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) the women who will be affected by this.
Since you’re a “abortion is murder” person, answer me this: Do you support free universal maternal care? Do you complain about taxes going to pay for welfare, public education, free afterschool childcare, etc? How about government funded public pre-schools? Free healthcare for young families? What about pregnant illegal immigrants? Do they get the same benefits?
Is pregnancy contagious?
That’s up to the woman and her doctor, and a doctor would never perform such a procedure. They’d do an emergency C-section with the hope of saving both.
” I get that people are upset that the Supreme Court might not be deciding in a way that they want” It’s a little bigger than that Duke. Alito is basically saying (in a very narrow minded interpretation) that the Amendment does not specifically state the words “abortion” in it – so it is not covered under the 14th. Well guess what – interracial marriage isn’t stated in the 14th amendment, same sex marriage isn’t mentioned in the 14th Amendment, the use of contraceptives is not stated. “The thing is, the dangers of dispensing with Roe go far beyond abortion, because the legal logic that threatens this particular right could quite easily extend to others, inviting states to try out new laws that regulate choices about whom to marry, whom to be intimate with, what contraception to use, and how to rear one’s own children.” So if you are supporting that Duke – you are supporting State control of individual freedoms – which is Communism.
Covid is contagious. Pregnancy is not.
UNRULYPASSENGER
– what % of 26 week clump of cells survive?
– what type of life does the born 26 week clump of cells have?
– what is the average cost of a NICU stay for a 26 week clump of cells? Who pays for that?
– what is the average cost to educate a 26 week clump of cells (IEP, special education)? Who pays for that?
Enquiring minds and all that.
DUKE – “Its a state issue” – since when should women’s rights and control of their own body be a “state issue?” Control of your body should be a fundamental, federally protected right.
The Law is unequal when it comes to Women on a variety of issues. When it comes to pregnancy all the burden lays on the women. The law does not equally hold man responsible. Least we forget, an egg
can not be fertilized without sperm. As such, the law to be equal “shall” hold men accountable for an unwanted pregnancy. AS of today, the law is gender bias, fact.
I have a hard time believing MISOGYNY is the driving force behind abortion restriction laws…
First, there are more women who vote than men, without the support of women I don’t see how laws restricting abortion could pass.
Second, I can’t think of one man I interact with who supports restrictions on abortion, however I can think of plenty of women who are against abortion and pro-life.
Third, my personal experience, while in college my girlfriend became pregnant, she chose not to have the child, we went to the doctor and the abortion was performed, I held her hand through the procedure (it was awful, permanently haunting) and then parted ways, twenty years later we briefly reconnected and she said it was the biggest mistake of her life. She said she and her husband were not able to conceive and had a terrible experiences (years) with adoption.
I am still pro-choice, but I also do not think this is an issue for the United States Supreme Court to decide and I certainly don’t believe the misogyny argument.
See Also:
https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/voters/gender-differences-voter-turnout
And alcohol is a LOT cheaper and doesn’t involve an overnight stay or invasive exams!
Doesn’t matter whether it’s contagious or not. Either people have full autonomy over their bodies or they don’t. If you make an exception for taking that autonomy away because the government decided, in this case, something is contagious, then you’re agreeing the the government does have some control over our bodies autonomy, which contradicts with nearly every one of the comments in this thread.
“Doesn’t matter whether it’s contagious or not.” yes, it does.
“contradicts with nearly every one of the comments in this thread.” No, it doesn’t.
Are you seriously saying that, because of the covid vaccine mandates, women shouldn’t be upset that they may lose the right to choose? You’re missing the point here, by a mile. Not surprising you take any chance you get to bring up the covid vaccine. That’s all I’m doing with you on this thread.
I’ll give you my 2 cents! Up to a certain point/date, women should get to choose. There obviously has to be a cut off point though so the blanket “right to choose” statement is misleading and incomplete.
What makes you think I didn’t?
VOR no one is saying to “allow” the government full autonomy over a womens body. You are comparing the vaccine mandate to this?
if you want to be part of society, get the vaccine. ( that protects EVERYONE in the HERD )
if you want to be part of society DONT get an abortion? ( no where does pregnancy affect or infect the herd )
see how that makes ZERO sense
Lol…. because you’re arguing with everyone constantly here. Let me guess though, you support it, but don’t think that right should be federally protected but rather left up to the states?
No Pstar, I’m not saying that at all. And where can I find some of that vaccine that actually protects everyone from catching covid? Because what’s out now would be considered a preventive treatment in 2019. Sacjon, as I’ve mentioned on this very thread and often in the past, the ‘how’ we accomplish something, particularly in the government, is just as important as the ‘why’ and ‘what’. Currently it isn’t federally protected so IF, again IF (people forget this was a draft leaked to intentionally gaslight people) it’s overturned it will go to the States for their democratically elected leaders to determine what their state should do. That is unless something is passed on the federal level, but I don’t think they will for reasons I’ve mentioned earlier. Too many here can’t separate the facts of the current situation and their feelings or opinion on abortion. Those are two very different things.
Can one be pro choice yet also think that 26 weeks is completely ridiculous? Because I am pro-choice and think 26 is unreasonable. That’s over 6 months, I think the decision has to be made at 14 to 16 weeks.
I believe in choice but with limits of course. First 3 months of Covid lockdowns made sense. After that they didn’t. Choice makes sense to somewhere around 14 weeks, after which it does not.
Many of the religious continue to cling to the belief that being anti abortion is a “godly” thing, and many of the non-religious continue to believe it is just the religious who are against a woman’s right to choose. But neither stance is correct. For just one of many examples, please consider the case of Romania’s executed evil dictator ceausescu. Ceausescu had virulent laws against abortion, making it punishable by death, I believe. But this stance did not spring from religion. Ceausescu was a lifelong atheist who despised religion, even when facing the firing sqaud no hymn for him, but instead sang the left -wing anthem—showing his life long hatred of the church and religion continued to the end. He had an early involvement in the communist movement and a thoroughly marxist anti christian education . Banning a woman control over her own body is like rape–it’s about power and control, nothing else.
944pm – there has to be parameters though, as if it’s legal at any/all points somebody )at some point t) will inevitably do it at the last possible moment. So there has to be some set of parameters. It’s an uncomfortable topic, but it seems important to determine what that point is.
This leak is the most egregious, intentional gaslighting I have ever seen and it blew up exactly as intended due to the low information populace who reacts off emotion, 30 second soundbites, and 140 character tweets rather than facts and an understating of the federal government, it’s three branches and how they work, and the autonomy of our states. The shaky ground Roe v. Wade has stood on as been discussed by legal scholars at depth the past thirty years, by both the pro-choice and pro-life sides, yet when given ample opportunity to codify this with legislation on the federal level, legislation not for the extreme ‘life begins at conception’ nor ‘abortions up until birth for any reason’ but reasonable legislation supported by 70%+ of the voters, our political leaders have passed. Why? I firmly believe it’s because politicians on both sides know they can raise a lot more money off people’s emotions and talk about “Fighting!” for their cause rather than actually addressing the issue. And yet again, the populace played into their manipulative hands, exactly as intended.
Because we’re a constitutional republic. While it occasionally may work in your favor, 51% deciding everything for the other 49%, especially when most of the 51% live in large urban areas (a very different lifestyle with very different issues than those in rural America and small towns across the country), overall it will yield less resilient outcomes.
DUKE: Explain to me why you think “the people” anywhere, in whatever state, should be able to decide whether I have bodily autonomy?
While we are at it, hey, give me your kidney. I need one, and I can’t live without it. If the voters decide that my life is worth more than yours, I can have it right?
I mean, we cannot even use a DEAD PERSON’S ORGANS without their consent.
Alito’s citations come from a man who believed witches should be murdered, wives were the possession of their husbands and rape between a husband and wife could not exist because of consent of marriage. This draft was supported by 4 other conservative Supreme Court Justices. This support demonstrates a blatant disregard for women’s rights, they are not qualified to remain on the Supreme Court.
A paramount requirement for a government run by and for the people is that they accomplish their role the “right” way and avoid “ends justifies the means” at all costs. This was a big issue I had with a lot of our covid response, and supported by the numerous decisions/mandates subsequently overturned by the judiciary. It absolutely can’t be, “follow the laws and procedures until it’s inconvenient to accomplish what I want”.
False
MM – You are correct…thus the reason I am pro-choice and against the vaccine mandates. Where did you stand on the vaccine mandates?
“total autonomy over decisions about her health, body, and life” except of course vaccinations, which would mean not “total” so apparently there is some level of state intervention on a women’s health, body and life that is acceptable to you. Disappointing how people totally memory-holed that as soon as it wasn’t convenient anymore.
MM – One can be pro-choice and yet also see the legal difficulties in this is a Supreme Court issue/decision (see Ruth Bader Ginsburg). And as for bodily autonomy, what possibly makes you think you have complete bodily autonomy? None of us do…there are a whole host of laws that “limit” our bodies.
With current trigger laws, in several states, when Roe is done away with all abortions will become illegal. In some states, the trigger laws would be cruel. For example, a female minor that is molested by a family member or raped will be required to carry the baby to term. Even talking about it under several state trigger laws will be grounds for prosecution. Let’s start there.
VOICE at 11:03 – no one held down and forced anyone to get vaccinated, in fact many chose not to, despite all the science and evidence and consequences. Therefore, yes, TOTAL autonomy.
Nice try at hijacking the thread though!
DUKE – yes, “People should have access to abortion” – agree completely! Problem is, if Roe v Wade gets tossed, many people will no longer have access to abortions. Leaving it to the states will result in millions of women (mostly in the south and midwest) being forced to travel out of state or turn to back alley “doctors” to perform this procedure. This is not OK. Not in America. Not in 2022.
Under that logic, no one is stopping a women from getting an abortion even in states where it would be illegal, just as no one was holding down and forcing anyone to get vaccinated. The women may be fined and the unvaxxed will lose their job, but TOTAL AUTONOMY! Your logic is flawed.
Not exactly, in the states that would ban abortion if, IF! Rv.Wade gets tossed it is already very hard from them to access the personnel and facilities to get one. Not agreeing that it should be tough to access one, but that is the situation.
VOICE at 11:59 – nitpicky…. but granted. Bigger thing is the vast difference you’re ignoring. Pregnancy isn’t contagious and can’t kill those around you. Now, enough with covid. It’s not the topic here.
Agree with 10:35. I am a male and I believe that women should have the right to choose. I also listen to people who are against abortion (“pro life”) and acknowledge some valuable points they make. When I balance the 2 positions, pro choice wins out but not by much. Other people balance the 2 and pro life wins out.
One thing to keep in mind is that there are many women who are pro life. There is a Gallup poll that asks people to self-identify as “pro-choice” or “pro-life” on abortion. The data was from 2018 to 2021. In 2021, 1016 adults were interviewed. Of the 471 women interviewed, 43% were pro life. Of the 545 men interviewed, 50% were pro life.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
If what you outlined earlier is the bar for recusal, we’ll need to rehash numerous cases already decided and probably won’t have a full panel of judges on any case going forward. What is often forgotten when making comments like that, is that it doesn’t just apply for this particular issue where it works in a particular positions favor, but would need to be applied consistently across the board. Which is why I roll my eyes when people think solution to SCOTUS issues is packing the court, like they think their preferred politicians are going to forever be in control and the other party won’t ever be able to take advantage of the change in the future. Imagine the uproar if Trump pushed to pack the supremum court, or started the Disinformation Governance Board, or required vaccinations in order to take part in society, or had a son with shady business dealings in a country we’re now sending billions of dollars and weapons to.
The hypocrisy with this issue is astounding. “Pro-life” but against all efforts to support the lives of children after they’re born by giving them access to healthcare, food and shelter. “Pro freedom” but the government can tell women what to do with their bodies and permanently dictate the direction of their lives. “Following the founding fathers” when the last thing they wanted was Christian doctrine dictating public policy. Shame.
@a-1651820549 you raise a very important point, thank you! EVERYONE who feels strongly about a women’s right to choose, should contact representatives in congress to pursue the requirement that Amy Cone Barrett recuse herself from this case. Below are examples of Justice recusal. We also have Amy’s own words regarding recusal. If she were to recuse herself, it could be a 4-4 vote on Roe v Wade and therefore Roe v Wade would stand as the law of the land!
Supreme Court Recusal, American Constitution society
Louis J. Virelli III Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law
https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/supreme-court-recusal/?msclkid=ff705bf9cd4711ec9d0c55129064dbad
The justices’ autonomy over recusal is reflected in practice. Notwithstanding their wide discretion in deciding whether to recuse, recusal is not uncommon at the Court. Stock ownership is among the most common grounds for recusal but is far from the only one. Justice Breyer has recused himself from multiple petitions in cases that involved his brother, a senior district judge in California. Justice Kagan recused herself from the controversial affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Texas, almost certainly because she had worked on the case while Solicitor General. In the October 2018 Term, Justice Kavanaugh recused from several cases he participated in while a judge on the appeals court, as well as Gundy v. United States, a constitutional challenge to Congress’s authority to delegate power to administrative agencies, because he joined the Court after oral argument. This past term, Justice Sotomayor recused herself from a “faithless elector” case, Colorado Department of State v. Baca, because of her friendship with one of the parties.
Amy recusal
Catholic judges in capital cases
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527/
Both sides have a compelling argument… a middle ground must be found. It shouldn’t (and cant) be all or nothing…
Or…. you can contact representatives in congress to codify abortion rights on the federal level so we don’t have to worry about Roe v Wade and what potential future justices may opine. Unlikely though because both sides cater to much to the extremes of their parties with one saying never for any reason and the other okay even during birth for any reason, both with no compromise. Meanwhile the rest of us sit here frustrated this is still an issue used by politicians to divide and direct us when nearly 3/4 of us agree that a reasonable policy is closer to what we have here in CA.
The middle ground is between the owner of the uterus and their physician.
Yes, they can do both vote to codify Roe v Wade and require Amy recuse herself as
a means of practice and preservation of the Supreme Court. Otherwise the Supreme
Court will loose all credibility.
The middle ground acknowledges that sometime between conception and birth, it isn’t just about the owner of the uterus and the physician, but the viable baby inside the uterus as well.
@11am, I disagree. A physician and surgeon upholds a code of ethics and must abide by medical guidelines. The mother is their patient and they can perform abortions up until a certain point to where it is safe for the mother. Waiting too long, it’s no longer safe and doctors will not do it. Just as surgeons will refuse other types of surgeries if the risk is too great. If a surgeon does perform a late term abortion, it should only be if the mother is at risk. If a surgeon does this risky surgery, or any risky surgery, “just because” then they need to have their medical compentency evaluated.
I’m quoting more than I should, yet wish I could post more. Amy Coney Barrett made her own argument for recusing herself from this issue; from moral issues on the basis of her religious beliefs (it’s worth reading the article):
https://news.yahoo.com/justice-amy-coney-barretts-own-144506136.html
To follow her own words in a 1998 law review article, Barrett should have recused herself from deciding this case (and all other abortion cases) if she has any integrity at all.
In “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” published in the Marquette Law Review, Barrett (then a law clerk to a federal court of appeals judge) and her co-author address the dilemma that faces devout Catholic judges in capital cases. She writes that such judges are “obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty,” but they are also “obliged to adhere to their church’s teaching on moral matters.” They are therefore “morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty.”
What’s a Catholic judge to do, then? According to Barrett’s article, the judge must recuse herself. She can neither enforce the death penalty and violate her religious conscience, nor fail to enforce it and violate her oath of office.
And even in a case in which a judge has discretion whether or not to sentence a convicted criminal to death, he cannot resolve to keep an open mind and then claim to have done nothing wrong if he decides not to impose the death penalty. Because, Barrett writes, “A judge who suspends his moral judgment during sentencing sets his conscience aside” and “cuts himself loose from his moral moorings.” That unloosing is itself a sin, she concludes – analogous to “looking lustfully at a woman” and thus committing adultery “in his thoughts.”
Barrett’s bottom line is that an “observant Catholic judge” may not “formally cooperate in bringing about the defendant’s execution.” And for that reason, “if one cannot in conscience affirm a death sentence the proper response would be to recuse oneself.” To do otherwise is to “betray a public trust” by manipulating the law “in order to save lives.”
What does all this have to do with abortion? Barrett tells us in the same article that in the context of abortion the case for a Catholic judge’s recusal is even stronger. Unlike the death penalty, the Catholic church’s “prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia are absolute.” And also unlike the death penalty, “abortion and euthanasia take away innocent life.” Abortion, she says, “is always immoral.”
And conservatives used to be pro-small government. Now it’s gov’t in the dr. office, gov’t in bedroom, gov’t in the home about raising children.